Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major health and socioeconomic burden, which is prevalent in children and adolescents. Among the most widely used interventions in children and adolescents are physical activity (including exercises) and education about physical activity. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity, education about physical activity, or both, compared with usual care (including waiting-list, and minimal interventions, such as advice, relaxation classes, or social group meetings) or active medical care in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, and LILACS from the date of their inception to October 2022. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared physical activity or education about physical activity, or both, with usual care (including waiting-list and minimal interventions) or active medical care, in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently determined the eligibility of the included studies. Our primary outcomes were pain intensity, disability, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, fear avoidance, quality of life, physical activity level, and caregiver distress. We extracted data at postintervention assessment, and long-term follow-up. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study, using the RoB 1. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We reported continuous outcomes as mean differences, and determined clinically important differences from the literature, or 10% of the scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (243 participants with juvenile idiopathic arthritis). We judged all included studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias, and at high risk of attrition bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low due to serious or very serious study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. Physical activity compared with usual care Physical activity may slightly reduce pain intensity (0 to 100 scale; 0 = no pain) compared with usual care at postintervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.08; 2 studies, 118 participants; recalculated as a mean difference (MD) -12.19, 95% CI -21.99 to -2.38; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Physical activity may slightly improve disability (0 to 3 scale; 0 = no disability) compared with usual care at postintervention assessment (MD -0.37, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.19; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in quality of life (QoL; 0 to 100 scale; lower scores = better QoL) between physical activity and usual care at postintervention assessment (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.35; 4 studies, 201 participants; very low-certainty evidence; recalculated as MD -6.30, 95% CI -18.23 to 5.64; I² = 91%). None of the included studies measured adverse events, depression, or anxiety for this comparison. Physical activity compared with active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. Education about physical activity compared with usual care or active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. Physical activity and education about physical activity compared with usual care or active medical care We found no studies that could be analysed in this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to confidently state whether interventions based on physical activity and education about physical activity are more effective than usual care for children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. We found very low-certainty evidence that physical activity may reduce pain intensity and improve disability postintervention compared with usual care, for children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. We did not find any studies reporting educational interventions; it remains unknown how these interventions influence the outcomes in children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Treatment decisions should consider the current best evidence, the professional's experience, and the young person's preferences. Further randomised controlled trials in other common chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, with high methodological quality, large sample size, and long-term follow-up are urgently needed.

Interventions for preventing falls in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Most people with Parkinson's disease (PD) experience at least one fall during the course of their disease. Several interventions designed to reduce falls have been studied. An up-to-date synthesis of evidence for interventions to reduce falls in people with PD will assist with informed decisions regarding fall-prevention interventions for people with PD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce falls in people with PD. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers were searched on 16 July 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also conducted a top-up search on 13 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce falls in people with PD and reported the effect on falls. We excluded interventions that aimed to reduce falls due to syncope. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Review procedures. Primary outcomes were rate of falls and number of people who fell at least once. Secondary outcomes were the number of people sustaining one or more fall-related fractures, quality of life, adverse events and economic outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 32 studies with 3370 participants randomised. We included 25 studies of exercise interventions (2700 participants), three studies of medication interventions (242 participants), one study of fall-prevention education (53 participants) and three studies of exercise plus education (375 participants). Overall, participants in the exercise trials and the exercise plus education trials had mild to moderate PD, while participants in the medication trials included those with more advanced disease. All studies had a high or unclear risk of bias in one or more items. Illustrative risks demonstrating the absolute impact of each intervention are presented in the summary of findings tables. Twelve studies compared exercise (all types) with a control intervention (an intervention not thought to reduce falls, such as usual care or sham exercise) in people with mild to moderate PD. Exercise probably reduces the rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.87; 1456 participants, 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Exercise probably slightly reduces the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 10% (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 932 participants, 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether exercise makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more fall-related fractures (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.17; 989 participants, 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Exercise may slightly improve health-related quality of life immediately following the intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.01; 951 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise has an effect on adverse events or whether exercise is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention. Three studies trialled a cholinesterase inhibitor (rivastigmine or donepezil). Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls by 50% (RaR 0.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.58; 229 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain if this medication makes little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14230 participants, 3 studies) and to health-related quality of life (EQ5D Thermometer mean difference (MD) 3.00, 95% CI -3.06 to 9.06; very low-certainty evidence). Cholinesterase inhibitors may increase the rate of non fall-related adverse events by 60% (RaR 1.60, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.01; 175 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Most adverse events were mild and transient in nature.  No data was available regarding the cost-effectiveness of medication for fall prevention. We are uncertain of the effect of education compared to a control intervention on the number of people who fell at least once (RR 10.89, 95% CI 1.26 to 94.03; 53 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), and no data were available for the other outcomes of interest for this comparisonWe are also uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether exercise combined with education makes little or no difference to the number of falls (RaR 0.46, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.85; 320 participants, 2 studies), the number of people sustaining fall-related fractures (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.32,320 participants, 2 studies), or health-related quality of life (PDQ39 MD 0.05, 95% CI -3.12 to 3.23, 305 participants, 2 studies). Exercise plus education may make little or no difference to the number of people experiencing one or more falls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; 352 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether exercise combined with education has an effect on adverse events or is a cost-effective intervention for fall prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise interventions probably reduce the rate of falls, and probably slightly reduce the number of people falling in people with mild to moderate PD.  Cholinesterase inhibitors may reduce the rate of falls, but we are uncertain if they have an effect on the number of people falling. The decision to use these medications needs to be balanced against the risk of non fall-related adverse events, though these adverse events were predominantly mild or transient in nature. Further research in the form of large, high-quality RCTs are required to determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and different levels of supervision on falls, and how this could be influenced by disease severity. Further work is also needed to increase the certainty of the effects of medication and further explore falls prevention education interventions both delivered alone and in combination with exercise.

Evaluation of the efficacy of an internet-based pain education and exercise program for chronic musculoskeletal pain in comparison with online self-management booklet: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial with assessor-blinded, 12-month follow-up, and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is one of the main causes of years lived with disability and generates the highest cost of health care among chronic pain conditions. Internet-based treatments have been shown to be an alternative for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, in addition to reducing barriers such as travel, high demands on the public health system, lack of time, lack of insurance coverage for private care, and high costs for long-term treatment. The aim of this clinical trial is to develop and test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of, an internet-based self-management program based on pain education and exercise for people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: This is a prospectively registered, assessor-blinded, two-arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation comparing the Internet-based pain education and exercise intervention with a control group that will receive an online booklet. One hundred and sixty patients will be recruited from Sao Paulo, Brazil. Follow-ups will be conducted in post-treatment, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The conduct of the study, as well as the evaluations and follow-ups will be carried out entirely remotely, through online platforms and telephone calls. The primary outcome will be pain intensity at post-treatment (8 weeks) measured using the 11-item Pain Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes will be biopsychosocial factors presents in the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Costs due to chronic musculoskeletal pain will be also measured, and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective will performed. DISCUSSION: Our hypothesis is that internet-based pain education and exercise will be better than an online booklet in reducing pain and improving biopsychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. In addition, we believe that there will be good acceptance of patients for the internet-based intervention and that internet-based intervention will be more cost effective than the online booklet. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04274439 , registered 18 February 2020).

Comparison of effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched trials of analgesics for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review.

AIMS: To investigate the use of an enriched study design on the estimates of treatment effect in analgesic trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Database searches were conducted from 2004 to 2014. We included randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating pain medications for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The estimates of treatment effect on pain and adverse events were compared between enriched and nonenriched designs. Metaregression was used to assess the association between the effect size estimate and the study design controlling for analgesic dose and methodological quality. RESULTS: We included 108 trials, of which 99 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 44 171). There were no overall differences in effect sizes between enriched and nonenriched designs for pain intensity. There was a significant difference for a reduction in any adverse events favouring enriched designs for opioids, but not for other analgesics or the outcome serious adverse events. There was an association between effect size and methodological quality, with failure to blind the outcome assessor and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis being associated with larger effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the use of an enriched study design changes the treatment effect size estimate for pain. There is some evidence that clinical trials that employ enriched designs report a reduced risk of adverse events in trials for chronic musculoskeletal pain, but it is unclear whether enriched designs influence estimates of serious adverse events. Features of trial design and study quality were associated with treatment effect estimates.

Motor control exercise for acute non-specific low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Motor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation). MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Motor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) is a common condition. It is reported to be a major health and socioeconomic problem associated with work absenteeism, disability and high costs for patients and society. Exercise is a modestly effective treatment for chronic LBP. However, current evidence suggests that no single form of exercise is superior to another. Among the most commonly used exercise interventions is motor control exercise (MCE). MCE intervention focuses on the activation of the deep trunk muscles and targets the restoration of control and co-ordination of these muscles, progressing to more complex and functional tasks integrating the activation of deep and global trunk muscles. While there are previous systematic reviews of the effectiveness of MCE, recently published trials justify an updated systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, five other databases and two trials registers from their inception up to April 2015. We also performed citation tracking and searched the reference lists of reviews and eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effectiveness of MCE in patients with chronic non-specific LBP. We included trials comparing MCE with no treatment, another treatment or that added MCE as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. We considered function, quality of life, return to work or recurrence as secondary outcomes. All outcomes must have been measured with a valid and reliable instrument. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened the search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. A third independent review author resolved any disagreement. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Review Group expanded 12-item criteria (Furlan 2009). We extracted mean scores, standard deviations and sample sizes from the included trials, and if this information was not provided we calculated or estimated them using methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. We also contacted the authors of the trials for any missing or unclear information. We considered the following time points: short-term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation); and long-term (12 months or more after randomisation) follow-up. We assessed heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by calculating the Chi(2) test and the I(2) statistic. We combined results in a meta-analysis expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials (n = 2431) in this review. The study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 323 participants. We considered a total of 76.6% of the included trials to have a low risk of bias, representing 86% of all participants. There is low to high quality evidence that MCE is not clinically more effective than other exercises for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. When compared with minimal intervention, there is low to moderate quality evidence that MCE is effective for improving pain at short, intermediate and long-term follow-up with medium effect sizes (long-term, MD -12.97; 95% CI -18.51 to -7.42). There was also a clinically important difference for the outcomes function and global impression of recovery compared with minimal intervention. There is moderate to high quality evidence that there is no clinically important difference between MCE and manual therapy for all follow-up periods and outcomes tested. Finally, there is very low to low quality evidence that MCE is clinically more effective than exercise and electrophysical agents (EPA) for pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life with medium to large effect sizes (pain at short term, MD -30.18; 95% CI -35.32 to -25.05). Minor or no adverse events were reported in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low to moderate quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with a minimal intervention for chronic low back pain. There is very low to low quality evidence that MCE has a clinically important effect compared with exercise plus EPA. There is moderate to high quality evidence that MCE provides similar outcomes to manual therapies and low to moderate quality evidence that it provides similar outcomes to other forms of exercises. Given the evidence that MCE is not superior to other forms of exercise, the choice of exercise for chronic LBP should probably depend on patient or therapist preferences, therapist training, costs and safety.

Pilates for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a major health problem worldwide. Interventions based on exercises have been the most commonly used treatments for patients with this condition. Over the past few years, the Pilates method has been one of the most popular exercise programmes used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the Pilates method for patients with non-specific acute, subacute or chronic low back pain. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and SPORTDiscus from the date of their inception to March 2014. We updated the search in June 2015 but these results have not yet been incorporated. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers as well as six trial registry websites. We placed no limitations on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only included randomised controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of Pilates intervention in adults with acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary outcomes considered were pain, disability, global impression of recovery and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent raters performed the assessment of risk of bias in the included studies using the 'Risk of bias' assessment tool recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. We also assessed clinical relevance by scoring five questions related to this domain as 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We evaluated the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach and for effect sizes we used three levels: small (mean difference (MD) < 10% of the scale), medium (MD 10% to 20% of the scale) or large (MD > 20% of the scale). We converted outcome measures to a common 0 to 100 scale when different scales were used. MAIN RESULTS: The search retrieved 126 trials; 10 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and we included them in the review (a total sample of 510 participants). Seven studies were considered to have low risk of bias, and three were considered as high risk of bias.A total of six trials compared Pilates to minimal intervention. There is low quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared with minimal intervention, with a medium effect size at short-term follow-up (less than three months after randomisation) (MD -14.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.91 to -9.19). For intermediate-term follow-up (at least three months but less than 12 months after randomisation), two trials provided moderate quality evidence that Pilates reduces pain compared to minimal intervention, with a medium effect size (MD -10.54, 95% CI -18.46 to -2.62). Based on five trials, there is low quality evidence that Pilates improves disability compared with minimal intervention, with a small effect size at short-term follow-up (MD -7.95, 95% CI -13.23 to -2.67), and moderate quality evidence for an intermediate-term effect with a medium effect size (MD -11.17, 95% CI -18.41 to -3.92). Based on one trial and low quality evidence, a significant short-term effect with a small effect size was reported for function (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.97) and global impression of recovery (MD 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.30), but not at intermediate-term follow-up for either outcome.Four trials compared Pilates to other exercises. For the outcome pain, we presented the results as a narrative synthesis due to the high level of heterogeneity. At short-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, two trials demonstrated a significant effect in favour of Pilates and one trial did not find a significant difference. At intermediate-term follow-up, based on low quality evidence, one trial reported a significant effect in favour of Pilates, and one trial reported a non-significant difference for this comparison. For disability, there is moderate quality evidence that there is no significant difference between Pilates and other exercise either in the short term (MD -3.29, 95% CI -6.82 to 0.24) or in the intermediate term (MD -0.91, 95% CI -5.02 to 3.20) based on two studies for each comparison. Based on low quality evidence and one trial, there was no significant difference in function between Pilates and other exercises at short-term follow-up (MD 0.10, 95% CI -2.44 to 2.64), but there was a significant effect in favour of other exercises for intermediate-term function, with a small effect size (MD -3.60, 95% CI -7.00 to -0.20). Global impression of recovery was not assessed in this comparison and none of the trials included quality of life outcomes. Two trials assessed adverse events in this review, one did not find any adverse events, and another reported minor events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any high quality evidence for any of the treatment comparisons, outcomes or follow-up periods investigated. However, there is low to moderate quality evidence that Pilates is more effective than minimal intervention for pain and disability. When Pilates was compared with other exercises we found a small effect for function at intermediate-term follow-up. Thus, while there is some evidence for the effectiveness of Pilates for low back pain, there is no conclusive evidence that it is superior to other forms of exercises. The decision to use Pilates for low back pain may be based on the patient's or care provider's preferences, and costs.

Overview of the economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Studies suggest a high economic burden among children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. There is no summary in the literature on the overall economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. The aim of this systematic review of cost-of-illness studies was to synthesize the economic burden of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. We conducted electronic searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit, NHSEED, and HTA databases. We included cost-of-illness studies that estimated healthcare, patient/family, lost productivity, and/or societal costs in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. The risk of bias was assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. All values were adjusted to the same reference year (2021) and converted to American Dollar. We included 45 cost-of-illness studies (n = 665,623). Twenty-two studies estimated the annual healthcare costs that ranged from $143 to $41,379 per patient. Nine studies estimated the annual patient/family costs that ranged from $287 to $27,972 per patient. Seven studies estimated the annual lost productivity costs that ranged from $124 to $4671 per patient. Nine studies estimated the annual societal costs that ranged from $1095 to $69,351 per patient. Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and musculoskeletal pain had higher annual incremental healthcare costs than those without these conditions (mean difference: $3800 higher, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 50-7550; mean difference: $740 higher, 95% CI: 470-1,010, respectively). In conclusion, the estimated annual economic burden of children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain ranged from $124 to $69,351.

Evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological musculoskeletal pain management in children and adolescents: A methodological analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies investigating the methodological and report quality of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain management among children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on conservative non-pharmacological pain management in children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Embase, and three other databases. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed each article according to the predetermined selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the AMSTAR 2 checklist and the quality of reporting, using PRISMA checklist. Descriptive analysis was used to summarise the characteristics of all included systematic reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews achieving each item from the AMSTAR 2, PRISMA checklist and the overall confidence in the results were described. RESULTS: We included 17 systematic reviews of conservative non-pharmacological pain management for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Of the 17 systematic reviews included, nine (53%) were rated as "critically low", seven (41%) were rated as "low", and one (6%) was rated as "high" methodological quality by AMSTAR-2. The reporting quality by items from PRISMA range from 17.6% (95% CI 6.2 to 41) to 100% (95% CI 81.6 to 100). CONCLUSION: This systematic review of physical interventions in children and adolescents showed overall 'very low' to 'high' methodological quality and usually poor reporting quality.

Developing and assessing the measurement properties of an instrument to assess the impact of musculoskeletal pain in children aged 9 to 12-the pediatric musculoskeletal pain impact summary score.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of musculoskeletal (MSK) pain in children, there is a lack of instruments to measure the impact of MSK pain on children's activity and participation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability and construct validity of the Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary score in school children (aged 9 to 12) with MSK pain. METHODS: We used a pragmatic approach in a reflective framework to assess internal consistency, structural validity, convergent validity, and discriminative validity in a sample of 615 children with MSK pain. RESULTS: The confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the summary score has limited internal consistency and construct validity. The estimated Cronbach's alpha was 0.63, and most goodness of fit indices met the recommended thresholds (SRMR = 0.030; GFI = 0.993, CFI = 0.955, RMSEA 0.073), although they were close to the lower bounds of the thresholds. The convergent validity showed appropriate correlation of the summary score with quality of life (r = -0.33), care-seeking (r = 0.45), and medication intake (r = 0.37). Discriminative validity showed that the instrument can discriminate between the impact of pain on children with frequent and infrequent (2.93; 95% CI: 2.36 - 3.50) MSK pain. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric MSK Pain Impact summary showed limited internal consistency and construct validity; however, it can discriminate between children with frequent and infrequent pain. The results are promising for clinical and research practices as it is a short and convenient tool to be used in school-aged children.

Prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents in Brazil: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents vary considerably and the impact of pain on children's life is often not considered. OBJECTIVE: To determine the one-month prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. The secondary aims are to: 1) determine the body region with the highest prevalence; 2) understand the characteristics of the children with disabling musculoskeletal pain; and 3) describe the parents' perception of the prevalence. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in public and private schools in the states of São Paulo and Ceará, Brazil. Children self-reported presence and impact of pain, pain intensity, psychosomatic symptoms, and quality of life. Parents completed parent-proxy versions and perception of the child's sleep quality. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data. RESULTS: A total of 2,688 children and adolescents were included in this study. The prevalence of disabling musculoskeletal pain in the previous month was 27.1%. The back was the region most often affected (51.8%). Children with disabling musculoskeletal pain were older, heavier, had worse relationships with their family, perceived their backpacks as heavy, carried their backpacks more with one shoulder, had more negative psychosomatic symptoms, had poorer quality of life, and had higher pain intensity. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children. CONCLUSION: The one-month prevalence of activity limiting musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents was 27.1% with the back being the most often affected body region. Parents tended to underestimate the presence of pain in their children.

A new version of a measurement for presence and impact of pain in children and adolescents - Presence and impact of pain in Kids (PIP-KIDS) questionnaire: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents is prevalent and responsible for high levels of disability. Instruments to measure the presence and impact of pain in this population are needed. OBJECTIVE: To translate, cross-culturally adapt, then test the measurement properties (structural validity, reliability and construct validity) of a questionnaire (Presence and Impact of Pain in Kids (PIP-Kids) questionnaire) to measure the presence and impact of pain in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Measurement properties study. METHODS: We conducted a measurement properties study. We translated and culturally adapted the PIP-Kids questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese. The structural validity was measured by Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Reliability was measured by Kappa Coefficient. Measurement error was measured by the percentage of agreement. Construct validity was measured by Spearman Correlation. RESULTS/FINDINGS: We included 656 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the translation and cross-cultural adaptation no changes to wording were necessary. Structural validity confirmed two domains. Reliability by Kappa Coefficient ranges from 0.20 to 0.68. Measurement error by the percentage of agreement ranged from 60.2 to 92%. Construct validity was confirmed with 80.5% in accordance with prior hypotheses. CONCLUSION: The PIP-Kids questionnaire translation and cross-cultural adaptation were adequate. The PIP-Kids questionnaire also has adequate structural validity with two dimensions (presence and impact), fair reliability, good agreement, and adequate construct validity.

What Works When Treating Children and Adolescents With Low Back Pain?

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common health condition for all ages. One quarter to a third of children report persistent pain, including low back pain. CLINICAL QUESTION: The aim of this Clinical Commentary is to provide an overview of evidence-based treatment approaches for children and adolescents with low back pain. KEY RESULTS: Physical, psychological, and pharmacological interventions are effective in reducing pain intensity and disability. Interdisciplinary and patient- and family-centered treatment approaches are the gold standard for persistent pain in children and adolescents. Communication between health professionals, children, and parents is a key part of a therapeutic alliance. The use of holistic and complementary therapies is not supported by compelling evidence. CLINICAL APPLICATION: Physical interventions can be delivered alone or as a component of other interventions. The interventions are delivered over 8 to 12 weeks. Psychological therapies are mostly delivered as a component of a multidisciplinary treatment program: cognitive behavioral therapy is most often used, and interventions usually run from 4 to 10 weeks. Pharmacological interventions should be delivered in combination with physical and psychological interventions. Tailor family-centered interventions to personal aspects, such as age, gender, and family structure. When communicating with children and adolescents, use simple language that is clear and direct. Aim to support trust between health professionals and parents to facilitate family decision making. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):419-424. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10768.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of the psychosomatic questionnaire for children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain into Brazilian-Portuguese.

BACKGROUND: Psychosomatic symptoms seem to influence both the onset and development of pain. There is lack of Brazilian-Portuguese questionnaires that measure psychosomatic symptoms in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents into Brazilian-Portuguese and English and test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. METHODS: The translation and cross-cultural adaptation (from Dutch to Brazilian-Portuguese and English) followed six steps. Interviews were conducted in 33 Brazilian children and adolescents. We also recruited 107 children and adolescents with musculoskeletal pain from schools to test the measurement properties of the Brazilian-Portuguese version. The questionnaire was completed twice with a 7-day interval. Ceiling and floor effects, missing data, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: We recruited 140 children and adolescents from public and private schools. During the cross-cultural adaptation process, no major difficulty answering and understanding the questionnaire were reported by children and adolescents. The questionnaire did not show ceiling or floor effects and had minimal missing data (0.37%). Internal consistency by the Cronbach's Alpha was 0.69. Test-retest reliability by the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.84). The smallest detectable change was 6.5 points out of 18 points. We observed a moderate correlation of 0.54 (p<0.01) with the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale, consistent with our a-priori hypothesis. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Psychosomatic Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents has acceptable measurement properties and is a good option for assessing psychosomatic symptoms in clinical practice and research.

Three in Every 10 School-aged Children in Brazil Report Back Pain in Any Given Year: 12-Month Prospective Cohort Study of Prevalence, Incidence, and Prognosis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence, incidence, and prognosis of back pain in children and adolescents. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: We followed children and adolescents between the ages of 8 and 18 years with and without back pain over 12 months (3, 6, and 12 months) from public and private schools. At baseline, parents (or guardians) answered questionnaires including sociodemographic characteristics and perception of sleep quality of their children and adolescents. Children and adolescents answered questionnaires including sociodemographic characteristics, presence of back pain, pain intensity, quality of life, and psychosomatic symptoms. At follow-up, children and adolescents answered questions about the presence of back pain. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen children and adolescents were included, 163 of whom had back pain and 452 of whom had no back pain at baseline. The mean age of participants was 11.6 years (SD = 2.5), and the majority were female (n = 362; 59%). The 1-month prevalence of back pain was 26% (95% confidence interval: 23%-30%). The incidence rate of back pain was 35% (31%-40%) over 12 months. Of the 163 participants who had back pain at baseline, 83% had recovered by 12 months. Of those who recovered within 6 months, 31% had a recurrence of back pain at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Two to 3 in every 10 children and adolescents reported back pain in the last month. New cases of back pain were reported by 3-4 in every 10 children and adolescents for a period of 12 months. Nearly all children recover within 12 months, but recurrence seems to be common. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):554-562. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10819.

Some types of exercise are more effective than others in people with chronic low back pain: a network meta-analysis.

QUESTION: What are the effects of specific types of exercise treatments on pain intensity and functional limitation outcomes for adults with chronic low back pain? DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with non-specific low back pain for ≥ 12 weeks. INTERVENTION: Exercise treatments prescribed or planned by a health professional that involved conducting specific activities, postures and/or movements with a goal to improve low back pain outcomes. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity (eg, visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) and back-related functional limitations (eg, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index), each standardised to range from 0 to 100. RESULTS: This review included 217 randomised controlled trials with 20,969 participants and 507 treatment groups. Most exercise types were more effective than minimal treatment for pain and functional limitation outcomes. Network meta-analysis results were compatible with moderate to clinically important treatment effects for Pilates, McKenzie therapy, and functional restoration (pain only) and flexibility exercises (function only) compared with minimal treatment, other effective treatments and other exercise types. The estimated mean differences for these exercise types compared with minimal treatment ranged from -15 to -19 for pain and from -10 to -12 for functional limitation. CONCLUSION: This review found evidence that Pilates, McKenzie therapy and functional restoration were more effective than other types of exercise treatment for reducing pain intensity and functional limitations. Nevertheless, people with chronic low back pain should be encouraged to perform the exercise that they enjoy to promote adherence. REGISTRATION: DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009790.

The Effectiveness of Strategies to Promote Walking in People With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of walking promotion strategies on physical activity, pain, and function in people with musculoskeletal disorders. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We performed the searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) from inception to August 2019. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions that promote walking in people with musculoskeletal disorders. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used the PEDro scale for assessing risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. We expressed pooled effects for between-group differences as mean differences or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals, or as risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twelve eligible trials (n = 1456 participants) were identified. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence of no difference in physical activity levels for walking promotion interventions when compared to minimal interventions, and a significant effect favoring walking promotion when compared with usual care in the short term. There was moderate-quality evidence that walking promotion was modestly effective for reducing pain and improving function compared with minimal intervention and usual care. There was no difference in pain and function for walking promotion compared to supervised exercise. Walking promotion was not associated with different rates of adverse events compared to control conditions. CONCLUSION: Strategies to promote walking did not increase physical activity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Walking promotion was associated with small improvements in pain and function compared to minimal intervention and usual care. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(11):597-606. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9666.